Marriage equality debate - The plebiscite is on its way. (Cont in Pt 3)

[Ruck Machine]

Rubbish.

Do you like fish sticks?

 

[Colonial]

What? Drivel.

You just whinged about being called a homophobe so not drivel.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Colonial]

No they can't, it's not legal.

They can at the end of the show if they want.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Bazzar]

They can at the end of the show if they want.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

So what, that's not what the tweet said.

 

[Lebbo73]

Lol i wasn't even talking to you.

Juussssssssssssssssst.couldn't.help. yourself

Sssshhh. Don't tell anyone but this is an open forum.

 

[Colonial]

So what, that's not what the tweet said.

Its the basis of it.

If you lot cared about the sanctity of marriage why let it be damaged in name like it is?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Hoops]

The only reason for these lame excuses not to hold a plebiscite is because your scared of the result.
If it really was cut and dried you wouldnt have a problem putting it to the people.

When shouldn't we have a plebiscite?

That's the slippery slope here.

 

[Xsess]

There's NOTHING stopping gay people from getting married already. As long as they do it with someone from the opposite sex. Which is what marriage is. What's the problem?

 

[Showbags]

There's NOTHING stopping gay people from getting married already. As long as they do it with someone from the opposite sex. Which is what marriage is. What's the problem?

Marriage is whatever the Parliament deems it to be. The debate is about Parliament changing that definition, which is within its power to do. Do try to keep up.

 

[TimmeT]

Penalty rates have always been there for a majority of young hospitality workers, it's only fair they get their say.

https://www.liberal.org.au/our-policies I don't see it here. Why can't we vote on a policy they didn't take to the election?

I would post an eyeroll, but even that is too far beyond you.

You'd need to ask labor why they didn't give people a say on penalty rates.

 

[Showbags]

You'd need to ask labor why they didn't give people a say on penalty rates.

Labor didn't change the Sunday rate brainiac. It was the Liberals who just ploughed it through Parliament without a mandate or a plebiscite.

 

[TimmeT]

Labor didn't change the Sunday rate brainiac. It was the Liberals who just ploughed it through Parliament without a mandate or a plebiscite.

Labor set up the fwc and mandated this review to happen without the need for the govt of the day to do anything. Don't blame the libs for it.

 

[Colonial]

Labor set up the fwc and mandated this review to happen without the need for the govt of the day to do anything. Don't blame the libs for it.

You mean like Howard changed the meaning of marriage without a vote and left it open so it can be changed by the government of the day without a plebiscite?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[NSWCROW]

Sssshhh. Don't tell anyone but this is an open forum.
View attachment 401344

Yes dipstick , i realise this but geez.

Seems to me you've got 38 different fronts goin in here that you should be concentrating on but was still so triggered over my post you couldn't stop yourself even if you wanted to.


Although to be fair , you bell-ends are " PERENNIALLY TRIGGERED "

 

[CakeEater]

Plebiscite will provide unequivocal, trust worthy and official stats that polls can't possibly provide.

Next.

Given that the plebiscite will only by a voluntary one (As the ALP, Greens and NXT are unlikely to vote for a compulsory one).

Won't a voluntary one just bring the votes in from those that are truly bothered to vote (on either side of the coin)?

Also this plebiscite is a non binding one- so wont provide unequivocal support for SSM, nor unequivocal support for the Status Quo.
It will change nothing until the politicians actually table legislation.

 

[Colonial]

Plebiscite will provide unequivocal, trust worthy and official stats that polls can't possibly provide.

Next.

No they wont.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Showbags]

Labor set up the fwc and mandated this review to happen without the need for the govt of the day to do anything. Don't blame the libs for it.

The FWC puts forward non-binding recommendations. Not binding judgements. The government of the day can choose to accept the recommendation and legislate on that basis or not.

Turnbull should have sought a mandate at the next election (using the FWC commission finding to argue his point), or going by the ridiculously braindead logic of the anti-SSM brigade, had a plebiscite on the issue. But no, because its something you like your happy for it to be rammed through Parliament.

 

[Showbags]

PVO's epic rant today on Sky News just completely ripping to shreds the absurdity of the government's position.

It actually went a lot longer but this was just a snippet.

 

[RupieDupie]

What I'm suggesting is the thinking of an enlightened mind. You know ... analysing arguments and weighting their merit.

I'm not sure which way to go ... have you not been truly 50/50 on an issue?

That's the issue, how long does the thinking and analysing process need to take?

Person A "Gay marriage is bad"
Person B "Why?"
Person A "Because it says so in The Bible"
Person B "Commonwealth laws should not be based on dogma within a religious text"
Person A "But but marriage has always been between a man and a woman, it is traditional"
Person B "For the majority of human history (and even present today) so was slavery"
Person A "Oh, ok, uhm, what if once you let gay people marry, some person will want to marry a <wait for it> child?"
Person B "Marriage is between consensual adults"
Person A "Oh, but what about if a person wants to marry a <wait for it> dog! An adult dog, not a puppy!"
Person B "What the * are you talking about?"
Person A "I read on the internet that someone wanted to marry their dog"
Person B "This is actually a serious question?"
Person A "Yes, because I can guarantee you this will happen, as soon as gay people marry, straight away my cousin Jeffrey will marry his dog"
Person B "Animals cannot enter into a legal contract"
Person A "What about incest?"
Person B "What about incest?"
Person A "People will want to marry their close relations"
Person B "Do you want to marry your close relations?"
Person A "No, but other people will"
Person B "Well in some states they can, as long as that person is the opposite sex and of a certain r value, but if the r value is larger than X the incest is a criminal offence, homosexuality is not a criminal offence"
Person A "In a heterosexual marriage a man has a pecker and a woman has a vagina"
Person B "Thanks for the anatomy lesson, why are you informing me of this?"
Person A "Only a man and a woman can make a baby together"
Person B "What about heterosexual couples that cannot make babies?"
Person A "Well, I personally find it yucky, I don't find members of my sex attractive"
Person B "Well, this is just something you are going to have to deal with champ, but at least you are now being honest"

Now let's just run through this, and whatever else people can dream up, for several more years of digestion. Just bide our time, just in case the rapture that was scheduled for 2000 actually occurs in 2018.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Conversely, if there is all this support for it, why are we voting on it in the first place? Why can't the pollies just do their job?

Because I have to pretend I'm not a homophobe while trying my best to kick the can down the road as far as possible /Liberals

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Malcolm Turnbull probably dreamt of being a unifying, modern Prime Minister. Hasn't it all fallen to s**t.

 

[Gough]

We need to do an anti SSM bingo card for the campaign. No doubt we'll be asked to think of the children, there'll be the slippery slope fallacy, at some point we'll all end up married to trees, there will be many accusations of virtue signalling, and the phrase regressive left, that will come out somewhere.

 

[strung_out7]

All of Australia instead please.

Choosing only to hear the opinions of those who are literate, enjoy football, explore other interests on a football site and find the time for it is too small.

So in other words, you are too afraid that the little utopia you think you live in is not what it seems. You do know how statistics work right? This forum would reflect a large chunk of society.

 

[darth_timon]

Why are homosexual couples obsessing over getting married then? Surely they don't need a marriage certificate according to your thinking ?

It matters because the opportunity to get married, like any other couple, is important to some homosexual couples, just like it's important to some heterosexual couples. Yet whilst heterosexual couples can get married whenever they want, small-minded bigots won't let homosexual couples even have the option, for reasons they've never been able to justify.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[darth_timon]

This is borderline insanity.

It IS insanity, so let's legalise SSM in Australia and end the insanity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk